The effectiveness of knowledge-sharing techniques and approaches in research funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR): a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The National Institute of Health and Care Research (NIHR), funds, enables and delivers world-leading health and social care research to improve people's health and wellbeing. To achieve this aim, effective knowledge sharing (two-way knowledge sharing between researchers and stakeholders to create new knowledge and enable change in policy and practice) is needed. To date, it is not known which knowledge sharing techniques and approaches are used or how effective these are in creating new knowledge that can lead to changes in policy and practice in NIHR funded studies. METHODS: In this restricted systematic review, electronic databases [MEDLINE, The Health Management Information Consortium (including the Department of Health's Library and Information Services and King's Fund Information and Library Services)] were searched for published NIHR funded studies that described knowledge sharing between researchers and other stakeholders. One researcher performed title and abstract, full paper screening and quality assessment (Critical Appraisal Skills Programme qualitative checklist) with a 20% sample independently screened by a second reviewer. A narrative synthesis was adopted. RESULTS: In total 9897 records were identified. After screening, 17 studies were included. Five explicit forms of knowledge sharing studies were identified: embedded models, knowledge brokering, stakeholder engagement and involvement of non-researchers in the research or service design process and organisational collaborative partnerships between universities and healthcare organisations. Collectively, the techniques and approaches included five types of stakeholders and worked with them at all stages of the research cycle, except the stage of formation of the research design and preparation of funding application. Seven studies (using four of the approaches) gave examples of new knowledge creation, but only one study (using an embedded model approach) gave an example of a resulting change in practice. The use of a theory, model or framework to explain the knowledge sharing process was identified in six studies. CONCLUSIONS: Five knowledge sharing techniques and approaches were reported in the included NIHR funded studies, and seven studies identified the creation of new knowledge. However, there was little investigation of the effectiveness of these approaches in influencing change in practice or policy.

Supporting the next generation of prevention research leaders to conduct effective research-policy partnerships.

Successful research-policy partnerships rely on shared vision, dedicated investment, and mutual benefits. To ensure the ongoing value of chronic disease prevention research, and support research translation and impact, Australia needs funding, university, and policy systems that incentivise and support emerging leaders to drive effective partnerships.

How much is invested in obesity prevention in Australia? An analysis of major research and Federal Government funding, 2013-2022.

Objective and importance of study: Overweight and obesity are the second leading risk factors for death and non-communicable disease in Australia. This study aimed to examine the Australian Federal Government funding landscape for population-level obesity prevention from 2013 to 2022. STUDY TYPE: A retrospective analysis and narrative synthesis of publicly available data on obesity prevention funding from the Federal Government and major federally funded Australian research organisations. METHODS: Searches were conducted of Australian Federal Government Budget documents and funding announcements from the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), Australian Research Council (ARC) and Medical Research Future Fund (MRFF). Funding allocations targeting obesity prevention, or the prevention of risk factors associated with obesity, were included. These were determined by the presence of keywords related to obesity, unhealthy diet, physical activity and sedentary behaviour. Data were extracted verbatim, coded and narratively synthesised by funding source. RESULTS: From 2013 to 2022, 186 funding allocations for obesity prevention in Australia were identified, totalling approximately A$778 million. The proportion of funding allocated to obesity prevention compared to the total annual budget of each funding source was relatively low: NHMRC = 1.1%; ARC = 0.2%; MRFF = 0.8%; Federal Government = 0.1% (of health budget). Funding for obesity prevention initiatives fluctuated over time. CONCLUSIONS: Findings underscore the need for strategic and ongoing funding allocation to support obesity prevention research, implementation and sustainment of evidence-based obesity prevention initiatives in Australia.

Building prevention research science communication and knowledge translation capacity through multidisciplinary collaboration.

OBJECTIVE: To document the outcomes of a dedicated Science Communication Community of Practice (CoP) for increasing prevention-focused knowledge translation (KT) and evidence uptake. Type of program: Shared priorities and a united vision to communicate the value of prevention research led to the formation of a dedicated Science Communication CoP within an Australian public health prevention-focused research collaboration. Members of the CoP included science communication experts and early- and mid-career researchers (EMCRs) with KT-focused roles. METHODS: The CoP met monthly, with semi-structured meetings led by an experienced science communication professional. A priority of the CoP was to develop resources that could help members and external parties to communicate their findings, especially EMCRs and those working on low-resourced projects. Insights from CoP members were synthesised to document if, and how, the CoP increased communication and KT capacity. RESULTS: CoP members found that participatory dialogue - dialogue that involves sharing perspectives and listening to others in order to develop a shared understanding - helped promote a greater understanding of science communication techniques and led to KT being embedded within projects. The CoP itself resulted in shared narratives and communication outputs that could not have been produced by individual members, primarily due to a lack of dedicated resourcing. Members found that engaging in the CoP increased their use of a range of science communication skills, tactics, and methods (e.g., targeted messaging for policy and practice, use of media and social media, and event management to engage audiences and build trust). LESSONS LEARNT: The CoP helped build a greater working knowledge of science communication among its members, leading to increased KT activities. Within an environment of low resourcing for science communication, bringing researchers together with science communication experts can help promote the communication of synthesised evidence and unified messaging on 'what works for prevention'.

Self-identified rurality in a nationally representative population in the US.

INTRODUCTION: In the US, health services research most often relies on Rural-Urban Commuting Area (RUCA) classification codes to measure rurality. This measure is known to misrepresent rurality and does not rely on individual experiences of rurality associated with healthcare inequities. We aimed to determine a patient-centered RUCA-based definition of rurality. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, we conducted an online survey asking US residents, 'Do you live in a rural area?' and the rationale for their answer. We evaluated the concordance between their self-identified rurality and their ZIP code-derived RUCA designation of rurality by calculating Cohen's kappa (κ) statistic and percent agreement. RESULTS: Of the 774 participants, 456 (58.9%) and 318 (41.1%) individuals had conventional urban and rural RUCA classifications, respectively. There was only moderate agreement between perceived rurality and rural RUCA classification (κ=0.48; 95% confidence interval (CI)=0.42-0.54). Among people living within RUCA 2-3 defined urban areas (n=51), percent agreement was only 19.6%. Discordance was driven by their perception of the population density, proximity to the nearest neighbor, proximity to a metropolitan area, and the number of homes in their area. Based on our results, we reclassified RUCA 2-3 designations as rural, resulting in an increase in overall concordance (κ=0.56; 95%CI=0.50-0.62). DISCUSSION: Patient-centered rural-urban classification is required to effectively evaluate the impact of rurality on health disparities. This study presents a more patient-centric RUCA-based classification of rurality that can be easily operationalized in future research in situations in which self-reported rural status is missing or challenging to obtain. CONCLUSION: Reclassification of RUCA 2-3 as rural represents a more patient-centric definition of rurality.

Action researchers as "orchestrators" of co-innovation: a theoretical and methodological framework.

BACKGROUND: With the increasing complexity of health care services, more comprehensive and integrated services need to be designed. Action researchers are encouraged to facilitate multiactor participation and user-centered approaches to initiate service development. However, "orchestrating" co-innovation, in which actors have diverse attitudes, agendas, positions of power, and horizons of understanding, is challenging, and a framework that supports action researchers in co-innovation studies lack. The purpose of this article was to explore how action researchers can facilitate multiactor engagement and handle possible challenges and stimulate creativity among diverse stakeholders. METHODS: We have studied and discussed two Scandinavian cases of rehabilitation innovation (for cancer patients and persons with acquired brain injury) where two research teams with action research approaches have acted in an orchestrating role to create co-innovation. RESULTS: We identified four themes that are essential for action researchers to facilitate collaborative and creative co-innovation processes: (1) relational power reflexibility, (2) resource integration, (3) joint understanding, and (4) the facilitation of creativity. These mutually dependent themes constitute a theoretical and methodological framework for of co-innovation. CONCLUSIONS: This paper offers a contribution that supports action researchers in orchestrating diverse actors and their contributions in co-innovation processes.

Realidad investigadora de los enfermeros en atención primaria de salud: ¿cuál es la situación? / Research reality of nurses in primary health care: what is the situation?

Objetivo: Examinar la actividad investigadora de los enfermeros en atención primaria de salud y conocer su divulgación. Metodología: Se trata de un estudio transversal descriptivo realizado entre el 27 mayo hasta el 29 de junio de 2022, en un Área de Gestión Sanitaria a través de un cuestionario electrónico autoadministrado. Contestaron el cuestionario 242 enfermeros. Un 5.2% posee el grado de Máster y ninguno el de Doctor. Un 8.3% ha colaborado en algún proyecto de investigación financiado, siendo la suscripción a grupos del Plan Andaluz de Investigación, Desarrollo e Innovación (PAIDI) de un 0,4%. La participación es principalmente colaborativa con sólo 1 caso como IP en proyectos financiados. La aportación a congresos u otras actividades de divulgación es de un 23% para comunicaciones orales y de un 26,1 % para comunicaciones escritas. Resultados: Sobre la publicación de resultados, un 16,5%, han publicado al menos 1 artículo científico, siendo un 1,3% en revistas de impacto (ninguna en Q1 y Q2). La temática de las publicaciones es muy diversa. La colaboración en investigaciones realizadas con otras disciplinas ha sido de un 10,4 % y en estudios de investigación realizados con otras instituciones o servicios de salud de un 11,3%. Conclusión: Se concluye que la actividad investigadora realizada en atención primaria es de bajo nivel y calidad. Existe dispersión tanto en la temática como en los perfiles enfermeros que desarrollan actividad investigadora, lo que implica inexistencia de una red consolidada en investigación en cuidados que sustente la práctica asistencial basada en la evidencia científica. (AU)

Aim: The aim of this study is to examinate the research activity of nurses in primary health care and to know his dissemination. Method: It is a descriptive cross-sectional study carried out between May 27 and June 29, 2022, in a Health Management Area Through a self-administrated questionnaire. A total of 242 nurses answered the questionnaire. A total of 5,2% have a Master ́s degree and none have a PhD. Some 8,3% have collaborated in a funded research project, with 0,4% subscribing to PAIDI groups. Participation is mostly collaborative with only 1 case as PI in funded projects. Contribution to congresses or other dissemination activities is 18.7% for oral communications and 16,5% for written communications. Results: Regarding the publication of results, 16,5% have published at least 1 scientific article, 1,3% in impact journals (none in Q1 or Q2). The subject matter of the publications is very diverse. Collaboration in research with other disciplines was 10,4%, and in research studies carried out with other institutions or health services are 11,3%. Conclusion: It is concluded that the research activity carried out in primary care is of low level and quality. There is dispersion both in the subject matter and in the nursing profiles that carry out research activity, which implies the lack of a consolidated network in research in care that supports care practice based on scientific evidence. (AU)

We-Care-Well: exploring the personal recovery of mental health caregivers through Participatory Action Research.

Family caregivers play a critical role in supporting the recovery journeys of their loved ones, yet the recovery journeys of family caregivers have not been well-explored. Using a Participatory Action Research approach, we explore the personal recovery journeys of family caregivers for individuals with mental illness. This case study involved piloting and exploring the impact of a novel online workshop series offered to mental health caregivers at Ontario Shores Center for Mental Health Sciences. Recovery courses and workshops conventionally engage patients living with mental health conditions. In the current case, the recovery model is adapted to the needs and experiences of their family caregivers, resulting in a pilot workshop series called "We Care Well". Through participant-led discussions, interactive and take-home activities, and experiential learning, caregivers co-created workshop content and engaged in peer-learning on seven personal recovery-oriented topics. This included: self-care, resilience-building, non-violent communication, storytelling, and mental health advocacy. Throughout the sessions, participants implemented their learnings into their caregiving roles, and shared their experiences with the group to progress through their own recovery journeys. The We Care Well series was found to be an effective intervention to adapt and apply the personal recovery framework to mental health caregivers. PAR, and co-design are viable approaches to engage caregivers in mental health research, and can facilitate knowledge exchange, as well as relationship building with peers and program facilitators.

Development of a person-centred care approach for persons with chronic multimorbidity in general practice by means of participatory action research.

BACKGROUND: The management of persons with multimorbidity challenges healthcare systems tailored to individual diseases. A person-centred care approach is advocated, in particular for persons with multimorbidity. The aim of this study was to describe the co-creation and piloting of a proactive, person-centred chronic care approach for persons with multimorbidity in general practice, including facilitators and challenges for successful implementation. METHODS: A participatory action research (PAR) approach was applied in 13 general practices employing four subsequent co-creation cycles between 2019 and 2021. The target population included adults with ≥3 chronic conditions. Participating actors were general practitioners (GPs), practice nurses (PNs), patients (target group), the affiliated care cooperation, representatives of a health insurer and researchers. Each cycle consisted of a try-out period in practice and a reflective evaluation through focus groups with healthcare providers, interviews with patients and analyses of routine care data. In each cycle, facilitators, challenges and follow-up actions for the next cycle were identified. Work satisfaction among GPs and PNs was measured pre and at the end of the final co-creation cycle. RESULTS: Identified essential steps in the person-centred chronic care approach include (1) appropriate patient selection for (2) an extended person-centred consultation, and (3) personalised goalsetting and follow-up. Key facilitators included improved therapeutic relationships, enhanced work satisfaction for care providers, and patient appreciation of extended time with their GP. Deliberate task division and collaboration between GPs and PNs based on patient, local setting, and care personnel is required. Challenges and facilitators for implementation encompassed a prioritisation tool to support GPs appropriately who to invite first for extended consultations, appropriate remuneration and time to conduct extended consultations, training in delivering person-centred chronic care available for all general practice care providers and an electronic medical record system accommodating comprehensive information registration. CONCLUSIONS: A person-centred chronic care approach targeting patients with multimorbidity in general practice was developed and piloted in co-creation with stakeholders. More consultation time facilitated better understanding of persons' situations, their functioning, priorities and dilemma's, and positively impacted work satisfaction of care providers. Challenges need to be tackled before widespread implementation. Future evaluation on the quadruple aims is recommended.

Disparities in Unmet Health Care Needs Among US Children During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

PURPOSE: The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted pediatric health care in the United States, and this disruption layered on existing barriers to health care. We sought to characterize disparities in unmet pediatric health care needs during this period. METHODS: We analyzed data from Wave 1 (October through November 2020) and Wave 2 (March through May 2021) of the COVID Experiences Survey, a national longitudinal survey delivered online or via telephone to parents of children aged 5 through 12 years using a probability-based sample representative of the US household population. We examined 3 indicators of unmet pediatric health care needs as outcomes: forgone care and forgone well-child visits during fall 2020 through spring 2021, and no well-child visit in the past year as of spring 2021. Multivariate models examined relationships of child-, parent-, household-, and county-level characteristics with these indicators, adjusting for child's age, sex, and race/ethnicity. RESULTS: On the basis of parent report, 16.3% of children aged 5 through 12 years had forgone care, 10.9% had forgone well-child visits, and 30.1% had no well-child visit in the past year. Adjusted analyses identified disparities in indicators of pediatric health care access by characteristics at the level of the child (eg, race/ethnicity, existing health conditions, mode of school instruction), parent (eg, childcare challenges), household (eg, income), and county (eg, urban-rural classification, availability of primary care physicians). Both child and parent experiences of racism were also associated with specific indicators of unmet health care needs. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings highlight the need for continued research examining unmet health care needs and for continued efforts to optimize the clinical experience to be culturally inclusive.

Developing a capacity-building intervention for healthcare workers to improve communication skills and awareness of hard of hearing and D/deaf patients: results from a participatory action research study.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare workers (HCWs) are commonly not prepared to properly communicate with D/deaf and hard of hearing (HoH) patients. The resulting communication challenges reinforce the existing barriers to accessing and benefiting from quality of care in these populations. In response, this study aimed to develop and evaluate a capacity-building intervention for HCWs to raise their awareness of D/deaf and HoH individuals' experiences in healthcare and improve their capacity to communicate with these populations. METHODS: This study featured a participatory action research design using qualitative and quantitative methods. The intervention was developed and tested through 4 iterative phases. Reactions (i.e., satisfaction and perception of the intervention content, quality, appropriateness and usefulness) were assessed quantitatively and qualitatively after the intervention, whereas perceived knowledge and self-efficacy in communicating with D/deaf and HoH patients and organizational payoffs (use frequency of basic rules and tools improving communication) were quantitatively assessed before, after and 6-month post-intervention. RESULTS: Main qualitative and quantitative findings showed that the final version of the intervention reached high levels of satisfaction among participants. Next, perceived knowledge and self-efficacy scores obtained after receiving the intervention and 6 months later were significantly higher than those yielded in the initial assessment, although both scores significantly decreased at 6 months (compared to the scores obtained just after the intervention). Finally, findings showed no significant changes in organizational payoffs after receiving the intervention. Echoing these results, main qualitative findings documented that after receiving the intervention, participants felt more confident yet not more equipped to communicate with D/deaf and HoH patients. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that the capacity-building intervention is a promising means to sustainably increase HCWs' perceived knowledge and self-efficacy on how communicating with D/deaf and HoH patients, although complementary approaches and follow-up intervention reminders may be necessary to enable practice changes in the working environment.

[Supply of Medical Aids in home Mechanical Ventilation: needs-Based and Safe? - The Views of Stakeholders Related to the Care Process on the Current Status and Perspectives]. / Beatmungsspezifische Hilfsmittelversorgung ­ bedarfsgerecht und sicher?

INTRODUCTION: The supply of medical aids is essential for patients with home mechanical ventilation. However, it is largely unclear to what extent this supply is needs-based and safe. METHODS: As part of a health services research project, 20 expert interviews were conducted with a heterogeneous group of stakeholders related to ventilation-specific medical aids supply. The interviews were analysed using qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: The interviewees pointed to challenges and problems regarding structural, procedural and personal aspects at all levels of medical aids supply. In particular, deficits in task performance, coordination and cooperation between the stakeholders and authorities involved became apparent. Such might result in avoidable safety risks and hinder needs-oriented supply of medical aids. CONCLUSION: Further development in ventilation-associated medical aids supply is needed, with focus on evidence-based practices, a comprehensive, cross-sectoral and cross-professional design as well as systematic evaluation.

Improvement of palliative care for people with intellectual disabilities: A multi-site evaluation.

BACKGROUND: To improve the quality of palliative care, six evidence-based tools were implemented in 10 care services specialised in care for people with intellectual disabilities. Contextual differences were taken into account by using a participatory action research approach. METHOD: The RE-AIM framework (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance) structured the evaluation. Data sources were online questionnaires completed by 299 professionals at baseline (response 45.2%) and 250 professionals after 2.5 years (35.1%), 11 semi-structured group interviews with 43 professionals, field notes and implementation plans. RESULTS: A total of 767 professionals and 43 teams were reached. The effectiveness of the intervention was demonstrated in an improved knowledge of palliative care policy and increased competences among professionals. 79% of the professionals adopted tools in the toolbox. The participatory action research method was perceived as valuable in driving change. CONCLUSIONS: Improving palliative care needs a context-specific, flexible approach, with involvement of all stakeholders.

How to facilitate NHS professionals to recognise and use skills gained from global health engagement when back in the UK workforce? A participatory action research project to design, pilot and evaluate a series of online leadership workshops.

OBJECTIVES: Leadership knowledge and skills are known to be developed by health professionals during global health experiences overseas. However, volunteers struggle to recognise and use these new skills on return to their workplace. A series of bespoke leadership workshops were designed, delivered and evaluated by leadership experts to help enhance the transferability of leadership skills back to the UK National Health Service. DESIGN: A mixed-methods participatory action research methodology was employed to explore the impact of the workshops. This approach lends itself to a complex, situated project involving multiple partners. Quantitative and qualitative descriptive data were collected via online survey (n=29 participants) and focus groups (n=18 focus groups) and thematically analysed. SETTING: The authors delivered the tailored leadership workshops online to globally engaged National Health Service (NHS) healthcare professionals based in England who had all worked overseas within the past 5 years. PARTICIPANTS: 29 participants attended: 11 medical doctors; 6 nurses/midwives; 10 allied health professionals; 1 NHS manager and 1 student nurse (who was also working as a healthcare assistant). RESULTS: Participants were able to network both during the large group discussions and while in smaller breakout groups. Data highlighted the substantial benefits obtained from this networking, with 91% of participants reporting it enriched their learning experience, particularly within a multi-disciplinary context, and by having the time and space for facilitated reflection on leadership. Furthermore, 78% agreed that they learned new skills for influencing change beyond their position and 76% reported they could maximise the impact of this change for themselves and their employer. Participants also reported the development of systems and ethical leadership knowledge that they felt they could transfer to their NHS roles. CONCLUSIONS: This study extends explorations of global health experiences by moving beyond the skills gained while working in low-income and middle-income countries. The innovative online leadership workshops gave agency to individuals to recognise and use the skills gained from global health placements on return to the NHS.

Leveraging Generative AI Tools to Support the Development of Digital Solutions in Health Care Research: Case Study.

BACKGROUND: Generative artificial intelligence has the potential to revolutionize health technology product development by improving coding quality, efficiency, documentation, quality assessment and review, and troubleshooting. OBJECTIVE: This paper explores the application of a commercially available generative artificial intelligence tool (ChatGPT) to the development of a digital health behavior change intervention designed to support patient engagement in a commercial digital diabetes prevention program. METHODS: We examined the capacity, advantages, and limitations of ChatGPT to support digital product idea conceptualization, intervention content development, and the software engineering process, including software requirement generation, software design, and code production. In total, 11 evaluators, each with at least 10 years of experience in fields of study ranging from medicine and implementation science to computer science, participated in the output review process (ChatGPT vs human-generated output). All had familiarity or prior exposure to the original personalized automatic messaging system intervention. The evaluators rated the ChatGPT-produced outputs in terms of understandability, usability, novelty, relevance, completeness, and efficiency. RESULTS: Most metrics received positive scores. We identified that ChatGPT can (1) support developers to achieve high-quality products faster and (2) facilitate nontechnical communication and system understanding between technical and nontechnical team members around the development goal of rapid and easy-to-build computational solutions for medical technologies. CONCLUSIONS: ChatGPT can serve as a usable facilitator for researchers engaging in the software development life cycle, from product conceptualization to feature identification and user story development to code generation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04049500; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04049500.

What really is nontokenistic fully inclusive patient and public involvement/engagement in research?

Patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) is critically important in healthcare research. A useful starting point for researchers to understand the scope of PPIE is to review the definition from the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) as, 'research being carried out "with" or "by" members of the public rather than "to", "about" or "for" them'. PPIE does not refer to participation in research, but to actively shaping its direction. The 'Effectiveness of a decision support tool to optimise community-based tailored management of sleep for people living with dementia or mild cognitive impairment (TIMES)' study is funded through the NIHR programme grant for applied research. TIMES has thoroughly embraced PPIE by ensuring the person's voice is heard, understood, and valued. This editorial showcases how the TIMES project maximised inclusivity, and we share our experiences and top tips for other researchers. We base our reflections on the six key UK standards for public involvement; Inclusive Opportunities, Working Together, Support and Learning, Communications, Impact and Governance. We present our work, which had been co-led by our PPIE leads, academics and partners including, together in dementia everyday, Innovations in Dementia, The UK Network of Dementia Voices (Dementia Engagement & Empowerment Project) and Liverpool Chinese Wellbeing. We have a Lived Experience Advisory Forum on Sleep, which includes people with dementia, family carers, representatives of the South Asian Community and the Chinese community.